• auroraborealiz@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    who even cares about naval assets in a land-based war?

    sounds like a waste of missiles that could be used to e.g. fuck with Crimes logistics by taking down the bridge

  • JCreazy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    11 months ago

    We’ve been hearing this for over a year now but it seems like Russia keeps going. Is Ukraine actually winning?

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Russia has orders of a magnitude more fighting age men and resources than Ukraine. If Russian losses are two to one or three to one in a battle it is still a loss for Ukraine. Ukraine just don’t have the population or material to absorb those losses. Ukraine needs to have a 5 or 6 to one ratio to win in a conflict with Russia.

      In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.

      The fact that Ukraine which five or six years ago didn’t have a
      functional military is still in this fight is very telling for how bad Russia’s military has atrophied after the Cold War.

      The front lines have solidified and Russia has shown they can learn to fight defensively. The best Ukraine can do now is perhaps cut off transport routes to Crimea and make the Russian position there untenable. Otherwise unless there is some kind of major revolution in Russia it’s doubtful that Ukraine can retake their lost lands.

      However, I still support supplying Ukraine with arms. This is Russia’s 9th military invasion of a neighboring country since the end of the Cold War. It won’t be their last unless they are bled dry. Ukraine has the will to fight them, they just need arms.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Russia doesn’t have anywhere near “orders of magnitude” more fighting men. That’s 100 times more at minimum. Russia’s population is about four times that of Ukraine, and their demographic pyramids are similar.

        Russia’s actual limitations are not in the raw numbers of people, though. It’s in public support. Russia doesn’t have the base of domestic support that Ukraine naturally has by defending against an invader.

        Russia is also absolutely not unbeatable. It has lost plenty of wars. 1st Chechen war, Afghanistan, World War One, Crimea.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          There are over 143 million Russians and only 38 million Ukrainians. With similar demographics my point still stands Ukraine needs at least a 5 to 1 ratio or higher to bleed Russia dry of fighting age men.

          I agree with you on support, but Russian society can absorb horrific losses before there is any danger of revolution. Perhaps the one thing that Putin is very good at is managing his rivals and keeping the oligarchy in line. He knows he has to win to keep them in line and will do so at any cost to Russia.

          You mentioned the first Chechen war but not the second one. How did that war turn out?

          WWI saw huge losses of over a million men. While Russian losses are high they are nowhere near that number today.

          The Crimean war saw Russia take strategic losses while in direct conflict with the largest powers of that time. The loss of Crimea itself would be a strategic loss but nothing Ukraine can realistically do beyond that is at the same level. Nor is Ukraine a major power.

          I’d agree with you on Afghanistan. It is probably the closest analog to Ukraine. The position of the Soviet Union was economically unviable and they were forced to pull out shortly before the USSR dissolved. Russia’s current economy is in the same position. But Afghanistan was a ten year war. Can Ukraine hold on long enough with Western support to push modern Russia over that same edge? I don’t think it would take ten years to destabilize Russia, but I don’t know that Ukraine can keep this fight up or keep Western powers involved long enough for that to happen.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well 100x is two orders of magnitude, so, it was technically correct.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.

        • Novman@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Both sides learn. Sometime i ask myself if americans believe that the americans and their allies are the only smart people in the world. You have seen too much hollywood movies…

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.

        Then again, in almost every past conflict in history Russia has had Ukrainians fighting for them.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In every past conflict in history Russia traditionally does terrible in the first few years of a conflict and absorbs staggering losses but is able to figure out what works and ultimately wins.

        That’s patently wrong. Russia at best has very mixed records. They don’t win every conflict. Take the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, invasion of Afghanistan and Chechen Wars. There is the famous adage: Russia is neither weak nor strong.

      • oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.

        They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Ukraine sunk their battleship, so why hasn’t the war ended?”

      If you’re going to insist on learning the realities of war from a boardgame, at least use Risk.

    • zenitsu@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Russia lost as soon as they failed to complete their stated “objectives” as fast as they arrogantly thought they would as they mixed up cosplaying as a superpower with actually being one. They’re no longer able to meaningfully “win” in Ukraine and with each passing day their position only weakens, while Ukraine gets stronger. The only question now is how badly Russia’s going to lose.

    • Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s more of a stalemate where small pieces of land are traded back and forth with no real winner or loser.

    • random65837@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Of course they’re not, Ukraine has zero chance of actually beating the Russian military. I’m on Ukraine’s side on this, but elementary school math here. Unless a major country puts boots on the ground with them, which is unlikely because that’ll start WW3, Ukraine’s only buying time.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Russia lost in Afghanistan (a much smaller and weaker country than Ukraine), they can lose here too.

        • Novman@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Afghanistan was a colonial war. Crimea is the only base Russia has in hot seas. Major wars was fought to conquer it. So USA cannot win a war because they too had lost in Afghanistan? And the enemy was even weaker, without any major power support ( see Rambo 3 for reference )